Saturday, May 03, 2014

A bill that would enable professional sports franchises to compete for sales tax subsidies cleared a major hurdle Friday, winning overwhelming support in the Florida House.

The tax breaks would be available to professional football, basketball, hockey and soccer teams, as well as professional rodeos and NASCAR-sponsored events.

But baseball teams would have to stay on the bench — unless Major League Baseball changes its rules about Cuban baseball players.

Lawmakers added the stipulation in response to media reports that Cuban outfielder Yasiel Puig had been held hostage by human traffickers while trying to establish residency in Mexico in 2012.

Under Major League Baseball rules, players from Cuba must live in another country before they can become free agents. Cuban players who come directly to the United States are forced into the amateur draft, which limits their salaries.

“Major League Baseball [has] inadvertently created a market for human smuggling and the unequal treatment of Cuban baseball players,” said Rep. José Félix Díaz, R-Miami, who introduced the provision with Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach. “We’re not going to give away our taxpayer dollars until this ill is corrected.”

In response, the MLB issued the following statement: “While the sponsors of the bill in Florida blame MLB policies for the role of human smugglers, they do not provide any support for their premise that Cuban players must rely on traffickers to defect to countries other than the U.S. such as Mexico or the Dominican Republic, but would not need the assistance of traffickers to reach U.S. soil.”

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

@1597: You're right about some historical cases, but I've seen no evidence that this particular situation was staged in any way. Anybody who wants to argue that it is should produce some evidence of that. But even if it were staged, I wouldn't care and wouldn't see anything wrong with that.

There's plenty of evidence.

1. ESPN knew of the Sam pick before the audience(*), so it cut to the guy announcing it-- obviously so they'd have footage of it. They hadn't cut to an announced pick for dozens of picks before and they essentially never cut to the announcer for later-round picks, they just show them on the screen.

2. ESPN had cameras at a well-known gay bar in West Hollywood, which they cut to in the immediate aftermath.

3. ESPN had cameras at wherever it was Sam was hanging out (and where the kiss occurred) which they never do for late round picks.

The better, more insightful question is in what way was "this particular situation" *not* staged?

There's nothing really "wrong" with it, but it does call the spontaneity of everything that happened into question. When TV cameras are in a place, people tend to act with the cameras in mind.

Rosa Parks wasn't a seamstress with tired feet - she was a a secretary for the NAACP and activist.

No, but she didn't choreograph her refusal to move back -- it was completely genuine -- nor did she call in a bunch of TV cameras to mark the event.

Not really -

For one thing - there had been a number of cases prior to Parks that simply didn't capture the imagination. Her refusal at the moment it happened was spontaneous, but the NAACP immediately seized upon as their best test case... She and the NAACP most certainly did call a bunch of TV cameras, just as the marchers years later would carefully train and select marchers to yield maximum effect for a TV audience.

zonk, your point is well taken, but Sugar Bear's also right, as you acknowledge by referring to the spontaneity of her refusal. There was a lot of planning that went into many of those demonstrations, but there were also plenty of times when people just got fed up and did what they felt they had to do, without much initial thought to either publicity or the consequences.

The sit-in that launched the modern civil rights movement, on February 1, 1960, in Greensboro, was entirely spontaneous, and it wasn't until those A&T students had been rebuffed several times and kept coming back, that the national press began to take notice. The far bigger problem back then wasn't getting the press to notice Martin Luther King's mass marches, it was getting the media to notice the scores of beatings and local arrests that were taking place every day in towns that were but dots on a map. For every one of those incidents that made the national news, there were probably 10 or 20 that didn't. It wasn't until SNCC was able to invest in a WATS line in early 1964 that news of all these incidents could be quickly reported into a central location and then sent out to the mass media, and even then it was often just by mimeo sheets distributed by snail mail.

The better, more insightful question is in what way was "this particular situation" *not* staged?

Mmmm ... if you really wanted to go down the rabbit hole, you could say that STL picking him was staged. They're near his home town, and with the talented pass rushers they have, no one would really think twice if he didn't make the team.

mefisto, I don't think Eisenhower could have invoked Washington vs the Whiskey Rebellion without a proclamation. I could be wrong but it is certainly precedent that a president forewarns an armed intervention in response to domestic insurrection or combination--as Grant did in his proclamation before intervening against the Klan empowered by the Klan Act.

But Eisenhower was sending troops to act as a posse comitatus to help enforce a judicial ruling at the request of a federal judge or commirrsioner, right? That was explicitly permitted under the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

If EIsenhower had relied upon domestic insurrection, he would have been bound by the posse comitatus act (not in force obviously for Washington) which would have made him bound to wait for a governor's request, which obviously wasn't forthcoming in that case, right?

Anyway, I don't think anyone challenged Eisenhower's right but I think it was because of the method he took

But I'm not an expert on the 1950s so could be confused or missing something.

@1597: You're right about some historical cases, but I've seen no evidence that this particular situation was staged in any way. Anybody who wants to argue that it is should produce some evidence of that

Well, gee, the first link I clicked on is a deadspin story from February that shows how heavily choreographed his initial announcement was. Are you so naïve to think that his handlers were so invested in orchestrating his initial announcement but then went hands off for draft day, a day when tv cameras would be there to cover live the reaction of the 200th pick in the draft or whatever the number was? The "first" here was not the kiss, but was unprecedented live coverage of a late-round pick.

In an orchestrated rollout at 8 p.m. Sunday, The New York Times and ESPN released stories in which Sam announced that he is gay. Outsports simultaneously posted a behind-the-scenes narrative about Sam's decision. When big news breaks, trailing media have to scramble the jets. This was different. Sam and his team—two agents, a Hollywood publicist and Outsports cofounder Cyd Zeigler, who wrote the tick-tock story—had planned the multipronged release for Monday. But Sam's sexuality was an open secret, and media outlets were on the trail. On Friday, Zeigler reported that he received a call from SI executive editor Jon Wertheim. "Sports Illustrated knew everything and they wanted to break the story," Zeigler wrote. "Wertheim graciously played ball and agreed to not jump the gun."

---

But even if it were staged, I wouldn't care and wouldn't see anything wrong with that.

There's nothing wrong with it per se, which is why there should be nothing wrong with someone pointing it out.

But I think the point is that there's a natural level of distaste -- whatever the situation in life -- to the notion that one is not seeing something spontaneous happen as pretended, but rather one is being played.

In a statement, President Barack Obama said that he "congratulates Michael Sam, the Rams and the NFL for taking an important step forward today in our Nation's journey" and that "[f]rom the playing field to the corporate boardroom, LGBT Americans prove everyday that you should be judged by what you do and not who you are."

The last part of Obama's statement is incongruous because the entire reason for ESPN to televise live a 230th draft pick -- indeed, the entire reason for a president to be commenting on a 230th draft pick to begin with -- is because of who Sam was and not what he had done.

The message used to be "a person's sexuality doesn't matter," and now it's "a person's sexuality absolutely matters and if you don't think it does you're a bigot."

What exactly is the "step forward" here? Has the NFL ever judged an LGBT American by who they are, rather than what they do? Is the claim that it's only now that an openly gay player would be drafted? Where's the evidence for that proposition?

The America of 2014 is bizarrely self-congratulatory, while all the while continuing to suffer setbacks on other important matters of substance. Perhaps the two things are related?

And spare the fainting couches. It's great that Sam's been open about his sexuality, and that he got drafted. I'm talking here about the widespread cultural back-patting and inherent denigration of what came before.

Gay man kiss on TV make Raybot angry!!! So illogical, other people care. Why other people care? RAYBOT NOT CARE!!

I assume, like most of us, that Ray has seen gay men kiss on television or other video. So why would anyone "care" about something they've seen numerous times already? Gay people kiss each other. Men who have played in the National Football League have kissed other men. This is news?

Which can lead us to, really, only one conclusion -- you aren't celebrating Sam kissing a guy, you're celebrating your celebration of Sam kissing a guy.

Is rampant passive/aggressive phrasing also one of the indicators of societal decline?

Renee Richards played in the US Open tennis tournament for five years (1977-81) as a transsexual woman. Other than the perfectly understandable disputes and lawsuits over whether she should be eligible, ultimately resolved in her favor, she played without a lot of fanfare or dissent, and certainly without the rampant cultural self-congratulation and choreographing that would accompany such a thing today.

In the peak year of 1979, she went to the third round.(*) She won matches. In the US Open. On CBS Sports. In a tournament watched by more people than watch tennis today. As a transsexual woman.

Though I was a young teenager through most of these years, I remember it well. She wasn't "ahead of her time," she was of her time.

So I've seen all this play out already -- and obviously a transsexual woman who'd already competed in professional tennis as a man is far more outré than a run-of-the-mill gay guy who has yet to play a down in the National Football League. It's not our fault that some of us are more sophisticated and wordly in these matters than others of us, and thus don't have the just-fell-off-the-turnip-truck reaction.

And first, I must take the inward characters, the patterns of her mind as you have heard them opened, full of collusion and deceit, crimes in themselves so odious and uncertain as the ancients knew not by what to term them and therefore they expressed them in a metaphor, calling them stellionatus from a discolored beast so doubtful in appearance as they knew not what to make it.

Good points about tennis, Bear. Of course, the culture of tennis is way different from that of football: there have been well-known gay and lesbian players in and out of more-or-less open closets in the tennis world, going back generations. And tennis occupies about 1% of the room that the NFL does in American culture.

Funny enough, my reaction to The Kiss was probably not far from Ray's: I didn't yawn, in fact I said "Aw, that's sweet" and showed La Dernière the image and she said "that's sweet" too though she doesn't know from football.

But the spin suggests that it's a bigger deal for more people than I would have thought, and dismissing them all as turnip-truck fallers is not really to the point. The NFL is a massive cultural operation devoted to defining masculinity. You might say it's the special interest group for "normal" tough straight guys. All previous gay NFL players have been closeted, and who knows how many Milos were put on draft picks in the past because of homophobia. Things are changing in a really big arena.

And to go back to the idea that The Kiss was staged: well, sure. But again, I think of all the stagy stuff that goes on with heterosexual, or presumptively heterosexual, sports stars. A couple of years ago I was watching the final round of the US (golf) Open. (Speaking of sports where all the gay players are in the closet.) Webb Simpson had taken the lead and was in the clubhouse watching the other leaders try to catch him. Mrs. Webb Simpson was at his side, living and dying on every swing, holding his hand. The Simpsons talk in the plural about Webb's golf achievements: "We won the Open." That display of heterosexuality was hugely staged and (let's give the kids the benefit of the doubt) also spontaneous and sincere. Why not recognize that public figures always stage what they do, even when it corresponds to their private feelings.

Another possible topic from the morning news feeds: West Antarctic glacial collapse, which will almost certainly raise sea levels four feet, though thankfully over the next hundred years or so, not in Michael-Bay fashion.

Question for conservatives here and elsewhere: OK, let's assume the position of Sen. Marco Rubio (R, Soon-To-Be-Submerged). Humans had nothing to do with this. The ice is melting and the waters will rise because it's just one of those cosmic cycles, or because God thought Michael Sam should have gone higher in the draft, or whatever. What should we do about it? Can we do anything about it? The options conservatives would offer seem to be three:

1) Can't do anything about it, we can have no impact on nature, suggest invest in Atlanta beachfront property.
2) Can't do anything about it, Rapture will be here well within the century anyway.
3) Can do things about it, but since we didn't cause it, it isn't fair that we should have to take any steps to address it.

#1569 Worth noting that Lincoln was not the first president to suspend Habeas Corpus. IOW he was also following precedent and thought Taney was simply wrong in his ruling. His primary argument is that the constitution anticipates the possible need to suspend it and Congress wasn't in session.

Taney acknowledged the first argument but said simply that the earlier actions were also unconstitutional. And never really addressed the point of an emergency while Congress wasn't in session. Worth noting that a) Congress sustained Lincoln's actions and b) nobody was indefinitely detained.

The one action that Lincoln took that he personally thought was of dubious constitutional merit was in the recognition of West Virginia as a new state. And he wasn't sure that his actions were in fact unconstitutional, he just wasn't sure they were.

The way I look at "The Kiss" (and I didn't watch it, or any part of the NFL draft) is that given the circumstances and the context of the NFL culture that BDC refers to, it's just one of those things that Had To Be Done, as one more checkpoint on a bucket list of Significant Cultural Moments That Must Be Noted. Given the event, and given the way that public events are stage managed, why would we ever expect "The Kiss" to be handled any differently?

Personally the only open displays of celebration I don't find a bit eyerollable are the ones that are unambiguously spontaneous, like a walkoff hit or a game winning touchdown as the gun goes off, and I can't even imagine watching anything as drawn out and boring as Draft Day. But that's the whole culture of sports these days, and I can't see singling out "The Kiss" as being particularly noteworthy or untoward.

But I think the point is that there's a natural level of distaste -- whatever the situation in life -- to the notion that one is not seeing something spontaneous happen as pretended, but rather one is being played.

I think the popularity of "reality" TV shows would tend to cut the other way, if there was a "natural level of distaste -- to the notion that one is not seeing something spontaneous happen as pretended, but rather one is being played." the genre would have been still born when MTV first aired "The Real World"

If EIsenhower had relied upon domestic insurrection, he would have been bound by the posse comitatus act (not in force obviously for Washington) which would have made him bound to wait for a governor's request, which obviously wasn't forthcoming in that case, right?

This may be just a matter of terminology. If Ike had violated the posse comitatus act, it would have meant that sending in the troops would have been illegal but not unconstitutional. IOW, my point was that the Constitution, per se, doesn't forbid the military from intervening.

Well, gee, the first link I clicked on is a deadspin story from February that shows how heavily choreographed his initial announcement was. Are you so naïve to think that his handlers were so invested in orchestrating his initial announcement but then went hands off for draft day, a day when tv cameras would be there to cover live the reaction of the 200th pick in the draft or whatever the number was?

I'm naïve enough (or lawyer enough) to think that this is not evidence that the kiss, per se, was staged.

The way I look at "The Kiss" (and I didn't watch it, or any part of the NFL draft) is that given the circumstances and the context of the NFL culture that BDC refers to, it's just one of those things that Had To Be Done, as one more checkpoint on a bucket list of Significant Cultural Moments That Must Be Noted. Given the event, and given the way that public events are stage managed, why would we ever expect "The Kiss" to be handled any differently?

Then it's not a "Cultural Moment" in any real sense.(*) If Sam and his BF were just playing characters -- which they were -- they're no different than two male actors kissing for the cameras, in the cinema or otherwise. That happened for the first time decades ago.

(*) Which I understand is the point you're getting across with the capitalized first letters.

Of course ESPN had cameras on Michael Sam. They did this for the same reason they had cameras on Johnny Manziel. Having cameras in a "well known gay bar," assuming that is the case (I don't watch the draft or know where the gay bars are located) is an obvious stunt for reactions. Again, infotainment complex is going to go with the infotainment angle.

None of that has any relation to whether or not Sam's kiss of his boyfriend (I assume) was "staged." That's the point where the "it's all just PC theater" meme that Ray is running with on the down-low breaks. ESPN having cameras on a famous, sadly but nonetheless controversial pick (who really should have gone in the third round at the least?) Infotainment. ESPN having cameras in a bar to get reaction shots of "the gay guy" getting picked? Infotainment. A guy who has worked his ass off his entire life to play in the NFL, who would have absolutely played in the NFL if he had not come out this summer, who dropped and was in danger of not being picked at all exclusively due to the fact that he came out this summer, getting picked in the final round and kissing the person he loves in celebration? Not likely infotainment. Not likely "staged," any more than any other "kiss my boyfriend/girlfriend when I'm happy" moment is "staged" on the TeeVees.

Alas, the new data suggests that while the Antarctic sheet is almost certainly in a point-of-no-return feed back loop - as is Greenland, for the record - the 10 or so feet of sea level rise that will likely result from those melts won't hit Florida until well after Marc Rubio is dead.

Then it's not a "Cultural Moment" in any real sense.(*) If Sam and his BF were just playing characters -- which they were -- they're no different than two male actors kissing for the cameras, in the cinema or otherwise. That happened for the first time decades ago.

The "Cultural Moment"'s significance was that it took place in an NFL setting, however stagemanaged. The "bucket list" point means that now that it's been done for the record, any future repeat performances will be no more or no less stagemanaged than a golfer kissing his wife on camera after winning the U.S. Open, or another draftee kissing his GF before the cameras on Draft Day.

A guy who has worked his ass off his entire life to play in the NFL, who would have absolutely played in the NFL if he had not come out this summer, who dropped and was in danger of not being picked at all exclusively due to the fact that he came out this summer, getting picked in the final round and kissing the person he loves in celebration? Not likely infotainment. Not likely "staged," any more than any other "kiss my boyfriend/girlfriend when I'm happy" moment is "staged" on the TeeVees.

False premise. A lot of red flags on him as a player. Tweener, not explosive, not fast, most of his production in a few games. Didn't fare well at the combine, which was reported on as it happened. Went about where projected; some analysts had him not being drafted.

You're inventing things again. Which makes sense, right? As long as we're just creating myths, we might as well just create obstacles. Without our protagonist having obstacles in his way, we don't have myth and we don't have drama. Screenplay 101.

Good points about tennis, Bear. Of course, the culture of tennis is way different from that of football: there have been well-known gay and lesbian players in and out of more-or-less open closets in the tennis world, going back generations. And tennis occupies about 1% of the room that the NFL does in American culture.

Your second sentence undermines your first, and SBB's claims about the relevance of Renee Richards. Yes, tennis has had out and open culture for decades. Ice dancing has had closeted culture for decades. Neither of those are the NFL in America.

False premise. A lot of red flags on him as a player. Tweener, not explosive, not fast, most of his production in a few games.

Things people said to justify not drafting him. The critique of him not being explosive or being slow to change directions is simply false on the facts. He's more explosive and changes direction better than his teammate who was drafted far earlier. He's the SEC defensive player of the year. He clearly has NFL skills. What he didn't have was NFL locker room approval.

Alas, the new data suggests that while the Antarctic sheet is almost certainly in a point-of-no-return feed back loop - as is Greenland, for the record - the 10 or so feet of sea level rise that will likely result from those melts won't hit Florida until well after Marc Rubio is dead.

So then he'll be doubly submerged. Too bad we can't think of a way to send a bozo like that down to a third level of interment.

In the 32-page appeal, attorney Leigh Gross Latherow says Kentucky has an interest in maintaining birth rates, which if allowed to fall can induce economic crises because of the reduced demand for good and services, and the reduction of the work force. She cited recent dips in the economies of Germany and Japan tied to declines in birth rates.

The appeal doesn't explain how allowing gays to marry would reduce the birth rate among heterosexual couples.

Sigh. No, Sam, these things are measured, recorded, and publicized. You can look at 40 times, bench presses, etc., for all the guys at the combine for probably at least a decade going back. They're easy to find. An inordinate number of pro and amateur analysts pore over and opine on these numbers and prospects. They aren't in locker rooms, and have no interest in painting a false picture of Michael Sam.

He's objectively not fast, and not explosive, and not big. He's also a tweener.

He may have been underdrafted. Plenty of NFLers are. Undrafted free agents become stars and hall of famers; people taken first in the draft -- Hello, JaMarcus Russell -- are unable to compete in the league. Tom Brady -- 6th round draft pick. Richard Sherman -- 5th round draft pick. Defensive player of the year 2009 (?) James Harrison -- undrafted, cut by several teams.

He also may have been overdrafted. Plenty of people are. We'll see.

You're also wrong about his teammate, also a DE, whom everyone had pre-draft as the significantly better prospect.

You're being a fraud again. You have literally no idea what you're talking about, and there's no reason to accept your personal reductionist utterances as anything beyond that. There are plenty of people in the world who simply know far more than you do about this subject. The question is why you don't simply accept that, and instead feel compelled to share your uninformed opinions. Stupidity dressed up as progressivism or liberalism is still just stupidity.

Your second sentence undermines your first, and SBB's claims about the relevance of Renee Richards. Yes, tennis has had out and open culture for decades. Ice dancing has had closeted culture for decades. Neither of those are the NFL in America.

Everyone in 1979 knew a transsexual woman was playing in the US Open. It was prominently in the news. And I wasn't talking about her acceptance in tennis culture; I was talking about the broader culture's reaction to her.

And tennis hadn't had an "out and open" culture for decades prior to 1979.

You're being ignorant again. You literally don't have a clue what you're talking about.

You're being ignorant again. You literally don't have a clue what you're talking about.

If you think 1979 America was open and accepting of gays and lesbians because a minor tennis talent was transsexual for a year or two, you're ####### insane. But we all know you think 1979 was awesome because you got your wick wet sometime around there. It's sad, really.

the 10 or so feet of sea level rise that will likely result from those melts won't hit Florida until well after Marc Rubio is dead.

the 10 or so feet of sea level rise that will likely result from those melts won't hit Florida until well after the immediate descendants of everyone now alive is dead. Which is what makes it so easy for people to do nothing

Of course a sea level rise of one foot can have bad consequences- storm surges that breech existing seawalls will become much more common. You can have a town that gets flooded once very 100 years get flooded once every 10 years, places that already flood every ten years will start getting flooded every year- and people will finally start moving away from those places.

This is literally like a super slow motion trainwreck, one's that's unstoppable due to inertia, but one that's also possible for everyone to walk away from in time, trouble is no one's getting up to walk away, they're sitting in their seats, drinking coffee, reading the paper, and every now and then looking up to see how far off the impending wreck is. Off course if most people don't actually get up until the wreck is literally upon them, everyone getting up and into the aisle all at once is gonna create a bottleneck, and folks who could have gotten off easily a little bit earlier will be stuck and unable to escape.

There had to be some kind of article or list with his probable draft spot before he came out, right?

There were plenty.

To take one at random, CBS Sports.com had Sam as the 15th rated DE. The #10, Jackson Jeffcoat from Texas, significantly faster than Sam and very productive in college, and with a father who was an excellent NFLer, didn't get drafted.

Kony Ealy, Sam's teammate who Sam the Silly ignorantly claimed wasn't as good a prospect, was rated the #4 DE. Virtually no one had Sam ranked above Ealy.

If you think 1979 America was open and accepting of gays and lesbians because a minor tennis talent was transsexual for a year or two, you're ####### insane. But we all know you think 1979 was awesome because you got your wick wet sometime around there. It's sad, really.

Then prove it, you ignorant idiot.(*)

No one cares about your reductionist utterings and opinions. They aren't all super special and ooey gooey just because they're yours.

Prove the things you say.

And grow up. You're embarrassing yourself with the "wick wet" nonsense. There are people in the world who know more about the world than you do and your efforts to deconstruct them and their motives are, to be charitable, third-rate.

(*) What the hell does "because a minor tennis talent was transsexual for a year or two" even mean? You're sputtering like a '39 Packard.

This is literally like a super slow motion trainwreck, one's that's unstoppable due to inertia, but one that's also possible for everyone to walk away from in time, trouble is no one's getting up to walk away, they're sitting in their seats, drinking coffee, reading the paper, and every now and then looking up to see how far off the impending wreck is. Off course if most people don't actually get up until the wreck is literally upon them, everyone getting up and into the aisle all at once is gonna create a bottleneck, and folks who could have gotten off easily a little bit earlier will be stuck and unable to escape.

The bellwethers will be Miami and New Orleans. Miami, particularly, is going to become uninhabitable more quickly than other US cities due to the nature of the underlying land. It's already flooding from below due to sea water seeping in through the limestone base. NOLA is more prone to storm surges and resultant flooding that way. New Jersey is also pretty ######.

No, that isn't a comparison. They aren't playing football games in the combine, as they are in spring training, and the problem with projecting from the combine isn't the small sample size, it's the fact that players aren't playing football.

The problem with combine numbers are that players train specifically for the combine drills to improve their results(without actually improving their football ability at all). Mike Mamula was one of the first to do so and is remembered as a bust because he was drafted so high(#7 overall) based mostly on his combine numbers.

Wherein Sam continues to demonstrate his poor self-awareness and awareness of the world around him.

Whatever, Peanut. My position is fundamentally counter-factual, but I will not move off of it. If he had not come out this summer, Michael Sam would have been drafted no later than the early 4th round.

Whatever, Peanut. My position is fundamentally counter-factual, but I will not move off of it. If he had not come out this summer, Michael Sam would have been drafted no later than the early 4th round.

So you have a rock-solid opinion on something you don't really know anything about. You must be so proud. So do the guys at the shot-and-a-beer bars in Youngstown. Theirs are probably more weighty and valid.

2. ESPN had cameras at a well-known gay bar in West Hollywood, which they cut to in the immediate aftermath.

3. ESPN had cameras at wherever it was Sam was hanging out (and where the kiss occurred) which they never do for late round picks.

Couldn't ESPN be covering all their bases by having the cameras in those locations?

If Sam is picked, catch the instant celebration.
If Sam isn't picked, catch the instant disappointment (at the end of the draft).

If Sam is picked, you can interview him and his supporters at the gay bar. Images and quotes of celebration make for good TV.
If Sam is not picked, you can interview him and his supporters at the gay bar (after the draft). Images and quotes of disappointment make for good TV.

If Sam is picked, ESPN talking heads can babble on about "historic" and "moving forward".
If Sam is not picked, ESPN talking heads can babble on about "unfortunate" and "moving forward".

The reason why there were cameras on Sam were because people had heard of him. No one else being drafted in the 7th round (or past the 5th, really) had a national profile.

Also, I think it's a bit contemptible for Ray/SBB to keep going on about how it's meaningless, etc. It had to be a very difficult and brave thing for Sam to come out to his teammates, and even more so to come out publicly before the draft. Yes, he had help. Wouldn't you want help if you were signing up to have vile things said to you and about you every day for the next year or more?

You can be snarky about the event, but you should at least acknowledge the individual courage it took to live honestly.

It had to be a very difficult and brave thing for Sam to come out to his teammates, and even more so to come out publicly before the draft. Yes, he had help. Wouldn't you want help if you were signing up to have vile things said to you and about you every day for the next year or more?

You don't understand, man. There was a transgender woman playing tennis in 1979. Coming out as a gay man in professional football in 2014 is like having someone bring you cupcakes. The Bear has spoken.

I imagine people were equally irritated/dismissive/scornful/etc when we saw Tiger Woods' dad in the crowd, or the Maris family in St. Louis, or the Japanese crowds in the middle of the night watching Hideo Nomo's first start.

This in particular makes me want to vomit with rage. He's not even facing the right way to go through! Staged much?

The problem with combine numbers are that players train specifically for the combine drills to improve their results(without actually improving their football ability at all). Mike Mamula was one of the first to do so and is remembered as a bust because he was drafted so high(#7 overall) based mostly on his combine numbers.

The focus on combine numbers is due to risk aversion on the part of NFL GMs and talent administrators. Almost every player who's considered a serious draft prospect was an exceptional performer at the college level; the combine numbers allow administors to differentiate based on objective criteria. If a player turns out to be a bust, nobody wants to get a call from an irate owner asking, "So out of the two SEC OLBs with 10 sacks, why did you take the slow, weak guy?"

By NFL standards, Sam is the slow, weak guy. Doesn't mean he can't go on to have a good or even great career; it just means that front offices are almost always going to try to cover their asses by taking "measurably" superior athletes.

Men were shown kissing in a well-known film in the 1920's. A film that has been shown on TCM, and restored on DVD.

Did you actually know this prior to today? Or are you just opinionating, like the shot-and-a-beer guys on the barstools?

As best anyone can tell, you have no inkling how the Sam situation fits into American cultural history. You have an impulse that newer is definitionally better, and no more. That impulse isn't worth anything.

If you actually watch the clip, they didn't really even need to kiss to "look gay." The minutes-long hair stroking and close tender gazes rendered the kiss almost superfluous.

Have you ever watched silent movies? I suspect you just googled up "first same sex kiss" and Wings popped up. (Of course, your bit about the salvage and restoration of Wings as a lost classic is exactly the sort of thing that the majority of red-blooded NFL fans would attribute to "Big Hollywood" (to use the Brietbartism))

What exactly is the "step forward" here? Has the NFL ever judged an LGBT American by who they are, rather than what they do? Is the claim that it's only now that an openly gay player would be drafted? Where's the evidence for that proposition?

None whatsoever. There is no indication that if Barry Sanders or whoever had been openly gay in college 25 years ago that he wouldn't have been drafted. And in fact the notion is ludicrous. As we "progressed" along nobody bothered to note that we weren't starting from a place where the NFL wasn't drafting openly gay players. And there weren't openly gay draftees only because the draftees chose not to be openly gay. To the extent there was someone to "blame" for that, or someone who was responsible for those decisions, it was those who chose not to be openly gay, not the NFL and not "society." And as we now know there were some NFL players through the years whose homosexuality was an open secret in the locker room and the world didn't cave in around them.

Men were shown kissing in a well-known film in the 1920's. A film that has been shown on TCM, and restored on DVD.

There were scores of "gay" scenes in pre-code movies**, but none which openly professed the gayness of them. The kiss in Wings was presented as the dying sentiments of two lifelong friends who had been after the same girl, had been through battle together, had seen their friendship torn apart over her, and at the end realized that their friendship was more important than their romantic rivalry. Modern critics and gay groups have often ignored all that while focusing on the "subtext", but if Hollywood had presented Arlen and Rogers as actual lovers, that film never would have seen the light of day.

**And many stereotyped "gay" characters in hundreds of studio era movies, both silent and sound. Franklin Pangborn's fastidiously fussy sales clerks and butlers were the best remembered archetypes of that subset of character actors.

Yes, because everything that's been said about him since he came out has been "vile." There's no word I'd place on the public commentary, on ESPN and elsewhere, other than "vile."

Some of his fellow NFL'ers said some vile stuff.

This is what BDC posted above:

The NFL is a massive cultural operation devoted to defining masculinity. You might say it's the special interest group for "normal" tough straight guys.

I'm not sure how you can really disagree with this, especially given some of the reactions from players in the wake of 'the kiss.'
==

And there weren't openly gay draftees only because the draftees chose not to be openly gay. To the extent there was someone to "blame" for that, or someone who was responsible for those decisions, it was those who chose not to be openly gay, not the NFL and not "society."

When you talk about certain subjects, you make yourself sound dumb. This is one of those subjects.

There were scores of "gay" scenes in pre-code movies**, but none which openly professed the gayness of them. The kiss in Wings was presented as the dying sentiments of two lifelong friends who had been after the same girl, had been through battle together, had seen their friendship torn apart over her, and at the end realized that their friendship was more important than their romantic rivalry. Modern critics and gay groups have often ignored all that while focusing on the "subtext", but if Hollywood had presented Arlen and Rogers as actual lovers, that film never would have seen the light of day.

As anyone can tell by watching, that was one of the "gayest" scenes in the history of Hollywood cinema. It wasn't just the kiss, and very little about their actual desires is left to the imagination.

In that era, and for much later (as you obviously know), Hollywood didn't present anyone as "actual lovers." Things were always just assumed.

The way I look at "The Kiss" (and I didn't watch it, or any part of the NFL draft) is that given the circumstances and the context of the NFL culture that BDC refers to, it's just one of those things that Had To Be Done, as one more checkpoint on a bucket list of Significant Cultural Moments That Must Be Noted.

Luckily for those whose jobs are to "note" these things, there are plenty of things left to "check" off. First gay NBA player for the Celtics. First one for the Bulls. First one in the NHL. First one in MLB. First one in ping pong.

The battle has been won, Andy, even if you progressives don't realize it. You can put away your "checklists." Those of us aware enough to understand that have noted it and moved on.

The other thing about silent movies, and it drifted into the early sound era before the sound technology rendered it pointless, was that acting was often much more melodramatic than it was later, with exaggerated physical gestures being the norm. You'd often see actors mimicking political orators while making the simplest statement to the person standing right in front of them, thrusting their arms forward with every other sentence. You'd see scenes of both men and women throwing themselves on a bed and hysterically weeping after a tragic event, in a way that would seen almost ludicrous to a modern audience. Subtlety of expression was known only to a handful of the truly great actors like Lon Chaney, and Rogers and Arlen's final scene in Wings was much more typical of the silent era's movies than of movies from about the mid-1930's going forward.

The battle has been won, Andy, even if you progressives don't realize it. You can put away your "checklists." Those of us aware enough to understand that have noted it and moved on.

Dude, you are a straight guy living in New York City. Please stop claiming to know what the experience of being gay is like for those who are struggling to inhabit that identity in less hospitable environments. Or keep embarrassing yourself by trumpeting your ignorance in a public forum. Your call.

if Hollywood had presented Arlen and Rogers as actual lovers, that film never would have seen the light of day

Absolutely, That's an unthinkable premise, code or no code, for 1927.

I think of the moment in Design for Living, 1933, when Miriam Hopkins decides to move in with both Gary Cooper and Frederic March. She takes both their hands and says "No sex." Even using the word marks the film as pre-code, but at the same time, it constructs a barrier several levels thick around the idea that the film would even represent straight sex, let alone polyamory, let alone three-ways. (Noel Coward's play had been a good deal more ambiguous, and was censored at first in England.) Of course you can't censor what was going on in people's minds, and people would tip to the jokes or imagine whatever sexual alignments they fancied. But the idea that even pre-code films somehow took gay desire in stride and represented it casually is just ahistorical, not to say nuts.

There were scores of "gay" scenes in pre-code movies**, but none which openly professed the gayness of them. The kiss in Wings was presented as the dying sentiments of two lifelong friends who had been after the same girl, had been through battle together, had seen their friendship torn apart over her, and at the end realized that their friendship was more important than their romantic rivalry. Modern critics and gay groups have often ignored all that while focusing on the "subtext", but if Hollywood had presented Arlen and Rogers as actual lovers, that film never would have seen the light of day.

As anyone can tell by watching, that was one of the "gayest" scenes in the history of Hollywood cinema. It wasn't just the kiss, and very little about their actual desires is left to the imagination.

In that era, and for much later (as you obviously know), Hollywood didn't present anyone as "actual lovers." Things were always just assumed.

But assumed by whom? By you and by some modern critics. By gays looking for past role models. But certainly not by the audiences or critics of the time, who saw that final kiss within the context of a plot that centered on lifelong friendship and a bitter heterosexual romantic rivalry. That's the key distinction between scenes like the one in Wings and scenes like "The Kiss".

The most you could possibly say about Wings is that the screenwriter was trying to slip gay romance by an unsuspecting audience. I think that's absurd, but even granting it for sake of argument, how would that make it comparable to "The Kiss", which was completely open with no translation or deconstructing required?

The way I look at "The Kiss" (and I didn't watch it, or any part of the NFL draft) is that given the circumstances and the context of the NFL culture that BDC refers to, it's just one of those things that Had To Be Done, as one more checkpoint on a bucket list of Significant Cultural Moments That Must Be Noted.

Luckily for those whose jobs are to "note" these things, there are plenty of things left to "check" off. First gay NBA player for the Celtics. First one for the Bulls. First one in the NHL. First one in MLB. First one in ping pong.

I'm sure there will be such notations. BFD.

The battle has been won, Andy, even if you progressives don't realize it. You can put away your "checklists." Those of us aware enough to understand that have noted it and moved on.

Ray, I don't give a #### about those bucket list checkoffs any more than you do. Where we part company is that it doesn't bother me that other people more directly involved in the "battle" find inspiration in them, and I don't feel the need to keep professing my lack of interest with each passing checkpoint.

I don't feel the need to keep professing my lack of interest with each passing checkpoint.

It is a little odd when someone takes to the tubes to announce loudly and passionately, time after time, how little they care about an issue, and how they are above talking about it. Almost suggests the opposite...

But certainly not by the audiences or critics of the time, who saw that final kiss within the context of a plot that centered on lifelong friendship and a bitter heterosexual romantic rivalry.

I'm not willing to attribute to the audiences and critics of 1927 the kind of unyielding density it would take to not see the gayness of that scene. The guys sit/lay on a bed for three-plus minutes, stroking each other's hair and gazing into each other's eyes and professing their devotion and fidelity to each other, and kiss each other.

I'd never seen it, so I turned on the clip expecting a passing, meaningless faux or bro kiss -- and saw the polar opposite, as I've reported. The scene didn't even need the kiss to translate its message.

The concept of gayness and gay people was no mystery to the world of 1927.

Also, I think it's a bit contemptible for Ray/SBB to keep going on about how it's meaningless, etc. It had to be a very difficult and brave thing for Sam to come out to his teammates, and even more so to come out publicly before the draft. Yes, he had help. Wouldn't you want help if you were signing up to have vile things said to you and about you every day for the next year or more?

You can be snarky about the event, but you should at least acknowledge the individual courage it took to live honestly.

That's the party line but what were the risks of Sam coming out in 2014 America? He is being roundly lauded for doing it -- it doesn't take courage to accept congratulations and accolades -- and you see what happened to the few NFL players (at least one I am aware of) who criticized him. They were fined and forced to apologize.

Impolite society may criticize him but polite society doesn't tolerate anything less than professed admiration for him. You see what's happened to SBB and me on these pages for simply daring to suggest that this was not a big deal and that the narrative is in many respects silly.

The more dignified approach, rather than to sign on with two agents and the head of Outsports magazine and a slew of other handlers and then to orchestrate when and how the media would release the Important Story, would have been to simply tell his teammates that it was not a secret he's gay and they're free to blab to whoever they want and if a reporter asks him about it say "Yeah." That would truly send the message that "this is no big deal." Instead we got a production along the lines of a Broadway show throughout this roll-out.

Yes, because everything that's been said about him since he came out has been "vile." There's no word I'd place on the public commentary, on ESPN and elsewhere, other than "vile."

SBB logic: If every single thing said about a particular person is not X, then nothing said about that particular person is X. In this case, since some people have actually been supportive of Michael Sam, then no one at all has ever said anything about Michael Sam that could be considered vile. Interesting, but probably wouldn't have gotten you very far in the philosophy class I took my freshman year.

You see what's happened to SBB and me on these pages for simply daring to suggest that this was not a big deal and that the narrative is in many respects silly.

You've been mocked for saying something really, really stupid which flies in the face of reality, and rightly so. You will continue to be mocked as long as you say stupid things, which happens pretty routinely around here.

Which reminds me of Richard Greenberg's Take Me Out, which premiered 12 years ago, and in the wake of which we now have zero out major-league baseball players. But I guess it's possible there either aren't any gay MLB players, or they've all independently decided without any cultural pressure at all to stay in the closet.

Honestly, some of this stuff is akin (as others have noted) to saying in 1947 "What's the big deal? I've seen black baseball players before. And there was never a rule against them. Most of them simply preferred the Negro Leagues! And the ones who wanted to play in the majors weren't good enough. Larry Doby? BORING. Don't you realize that Paul Robeson was in a movie once? Nothing to see here, folks." :)

You've been mocked for saying something really, really stupid which flies in the face of reality, and rightly so. You will continue to be mocked as long as you say stupid things, which happens pretty routinely around here.

Yes, it's really "tough" to come out to the public. You have an army of people willing to back and support you and prop you up as a hero, including the president of the US. Yes. That is one hellish path to travel that one needs an unusual amount of Courage for.

Where do you people get this stuff from? Are you living in the real world?

Not to drop into an unwinnable Ray argument, but all of that support isn't with you at all times. There are plenty of times where you're going to be by yourself and be surrounded by a load of hate. Hell, the President saying something about you is going to put a target on your back all by itself and the POTUS isn't going to be there to tuck you in at night.

Think of that scene in the movie Hurricane where the protagonist becomes the cause celebre and has what seems like everyone supporting him. Then a week later he's still in his predicament and all alone.

The support is great and it definitely help but it doesn't insulate completely or even close to it.

[In "Wings"] The guys sit/lay on a bed for three-plus minutes, stroking each other's hair and gazing into each other's eyes and professing their devotion and fidelity to each other, and kiss each other.
I'd never seen it, so I turned on the clip expecting a passing, meaningless faux or bro kiss -- and saw the polar opposite, as I've reported. The scene didn't even need the kiss to translate its message.

Yeahhh, interesting reading 87 years later, but you might want to watch the film's preceding two hours and fifteen minutes sometime.

And many stereotyped "gay" characters in hundreds of studio era movies, both silent and sound. Franklin Pangborn's fastidiously fussy sales clerks and butlers were the best remembered archetypes of that subset of character actors.

Yes, it's really "tough" to come out to the public. You have an army of people willing to back and support you and prop you up as a hero, including the president of the US. Yes. That is one hellish path to travel that one needs an unusual amount of Courage for.

Now you're just lying to change the subject. Read your own comment. You didn't argue that it wasn't tough (which is also a dumb argument), you argued that it wasn't a big deal. It clearly was and is a big deal, which is evidenced particularly by the vast amount of media coverage it is receiving.

But certainly not by the audiences or critics of the time, who saw that final kiss within the context of a plot that centered on lifelong friendship and a bitter heterosexual romantic rivalry.

I'm not willing to attribute to the audiences and critics of 1927 the kind of unyielding density it would take to not see the gayness of that scene. The guys sit/lay on a bed for three-plus minutes, stroking each other's hair and gazing into each other's eyes and professing their devotion and fidelity to each other, and kiss each other.

I'd never seen it, so I turned on the clip expecting a passing, meaningless faux or bro kiss -- and saw the polar opposite, as I've reported. The scene didn't even need the kiss to translate its message.

As Gonfalon has already suggested, you might want to watch the preceding 2 1/4 hours before issuing such grand proclamations. I'd only add that you might also stick it out and watch the closing scene.

The concept of gayness and gay people was no mystery to the world of 1927.

Of course it wasn't, but it was no more accepted as being remotely normal or natural by the mainstream movie audiences then than it is in much of the Bible Belt today.

you might want to watch the film's preceding two hours and fifteen minutes

Exactly. Or consider the context of contemporary WWI films. There is a lot of love in the trenches in All Quiet on the Western Front, too: male-bonding, affection, sentiment in the face of trauma. I think too of the great drag scene in Grand Illusion (where it's clear that the man in drag is simply beautiful, in a way that would never be realized except for the extremity of the wartime situation). The point is that kissing or no kissing, same-sex emotions or not, none of these films give us gay men smooching with their partners in the morning as they grab their hats after bacon and eggs, or turning to their boyfriends and planting one on them after getting some good news in a telegram. These are films about extreme circumstances, not films that take gay partnership for granted.

I might point out that in contemporary Arab society it isn't at all unusual to see men kissing or holding hands, but to jump to the conclusion that homosexuality is widely accepted would be a colossal error.

Andy, I'm in Hong Kong without the standard 692 channels to choose from and I fell into A Catered Affair the other night, with Bette Davis, Debbie Reynolds, and Ernest Borgnine. Thoughts? I thought it was interesting enough to watch, although pre-1965 era films do tend to seem sort of boring to me. This one was better than most.

SugarBear is right, and everyone else is wrong. On an unrelated note, I just finished watching 3 isolated minutes from the end of "Schindler's List," and it's a lovely film about a society of rock collectors.